Well, the first volume of the collected Clark Ashton Smith from Night Shade is doing rather well, and there is even some discussion of a second printing. In anticipation of such a contingency, I'd like to invite any of you who have found any typographical errors to pass them along so that we may correct the reprint. So far neither Ron nor I have found any, but I attribute that to the fact that after all that we've been through as of late, we see corrected text before our eyes when we sleep! So...help a brother (in Almonsin-Metraton, natch!) out, hokay?

Best,
Scott

Will do! I'm obsessed enough to have done textual comparisons between the Penguin versions of Lovecraft (well, at least two-and-a-half volumes of them!) and the Arkham House versions and spotted lots of new errors (this work will eventually result in errata lists for the Penguins, to be published in the EOD). I'll be all too happy to "proof" Smith as well.

Yrs
Martin

P. S. Speaking of the Penguins, one of the changes (and this is a new, deliberate correction, not an error; I've checked with Master Joshi) is that it's now "Almousin-Metraton". :-)

Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will do! I'm obsessed enough to have done textual
> comparisons between the Penguin versions of
> Lovecraft (well, at least two-and-a-half volumes
> of them!) and the Arkham House versions and
> spotted lots of new errors (this work will
> eventually result in errata lists for the
> Penguins, to be published in the EOD). I'll be all
> too happy to "proof" Smith as well.
>
> Yrs
> Martin
>
> P. S. Speaking of the Penguins, one of the changes
> (and this is a new, deliberate correction, not an
> error; I've checked with Master Joshi) is that
> it's now "Almousin-Metraton". :-)

I'm the same way about comparing different editions. I was stupefied to find that in the Library of America edition of Lovecraft's works, most of the dialogue that Harley Warren relates to Carter as he rambles in the underground pit are in italics whereas my beloved Del Rey editions just print the text straight! Oh, well...

By the way, Martin, has shewing your friend some of Clark Ashton Smith's comely photos helped in any way in getting her interested in reading some of his works? ^_^

We have seen the darkness
Where charnel things decay,
Where atom moves with atom
In shining swift array,
Like ordered constellations
On some sidereal way.
--from Nyctalops

Quote:

I'm obsessed enough to have done textual comparisons between the Penguin versions of Lovecraft (well, at least two-and-a-half volumes of them!) and the Arkham House versions and spotted lots of new errors (this work will eventually result in errata lists for the Penguins, to be published in the EOD)

I am a little puzzled. Joshi writes that the Penguin editions represent more up-to-date texts than the Arkham House versions. So, while I realize that the Penguin editions of Lovecraft are supposed to contain errors, it still seems to me that a textual discrepancy between the Arkham House editions and the Penguin editions does not necessarily mean that the latter are in error.

By the way, what/where is the "EOD"? I'd still like to see these errata lists, when they appear. Thanks.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I am a little puzzled. Joshi writes that the
> Penguin editions represent more up-to-date texts
> than the Arkham House versions. So, while I
> realize that the Penguin editions of Lovecraft are
> supposed to contain errors, it still seems to me
> that a textual discrepancy between the Arkham
> House editions and the Penguin editions does not
> necessarily mean that the latter are in error.

I know what it says in the Penguins, and I thought it was true for quite some time. I used the Penguins as my pattern when I checked my e-texts of Lovecraft. This was when there were only two Penguin volumes, so for the rest of the stories I had to use the Arkhams. Then when The Dreams in the Witch House and Other Stories was published I went over those particular stories again, and that's when I discovered the discrepancies. I was shocked! I started compiling lists, which I've sent to S. T.; so far he has confirmed only my partial list for Witch House, but of all those I found, only a few were deliberate corrections.

Here's a sample -- the error list for "Through the Gates of the Silver Key" and "The Shadow Out of Time" in Witch House (numbers refer to page and line):

THROUGH THE GATES OF THE SILVER KEY
268.9: his language was easy,] his language was as easy,
268.17: Churchward declared it] Churchward declares it
270.12: full of strange magic] full of a strange magic
270.30: countryside, of winding] countryside of winding
273.24: the most Ancient One] the Most Ancient One
275.16: though long-delayed.] though long delayed.
280.5-6: ages of earthy entity] ages of earthly entity
284.34: his ego amidst myriads] his ego amongst myriads
287.6: was not time] was no time
287.8-9: Carter knew that this terrible] Carter knew that his terrible
287.39: than otherwise . . .] than otherwise. . . .
298.39: De Marigny and Phillips scarcely knew what] De Marigny and Phillips scarcely know what

THE SHADOW OUT OF TIME
336.8-9: before sailing because] before sailing, because
337.19: slumped down unconscious] slumped down, unconscious
340.26: all recollections] all the recollections
342.13: thinking of periods of events] thinking of periods and events
344.16-17: during the past half-century] during the past half century
348.8: stone in the glades] stone in glades
349.16: psuedo-memory] pseudo-memory
350.10: have bought] have brought
353.25: from ages past,] from past ages,
359.35: in A.D. 5000, with] in A.D. 5000; with
360.11: named Pierre-Lous] named Pierre-Louis
360.12: Crom-Ya, and Cimmerian] Crom-Ya, a Cimmerian
360.12: Cimmerian chieftan of] Cimmerian chieftain of
365.33: what they had looked like.] what they looked like.
366.14: the fleeting minds] the fleeing minds
376.2-3: and psuedo-memories.] and pseudo-memories
376.27: shards of unguessed past.] shards of an unguessed past.
379.19: traces of the carving] traces of carving
384.5: As I wiggled] As I wriggled

The last one requires an explanation: I checked my e-library, and Lovecraft's preferred usage is obviously "wriggle". There's only one "wiggle" that appears in both Arkhams and Penguins, and that's in The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath. THIS particular case of "wiggled" also appears in the text that was the source for the Penguin (the Hippocampus Press edition of the corrected text of "The Shadow out of Time"), but the Arkham text has "wriggled" here, which is also backed up by another instance of "wriggled" in the same text in all sources, so I concluded that this "wiggled" is a typo, and S. T. has confirmed it.

"His" becoming "this" and "that" becoming "this", and the other way around, are quite common in the books.
This seems to have happened when Penguin insisted on re-transcribing the texts.

>
> By the way, what/where is the "EOD"? I'd still
> like to see these errata lists, when they appear.
> Thanks.

No worries -- if Boyd doesn't mind, I can publish them here when they're done. In the meantime, here's a sample above.

Yrs
Martin

P. S. To get back to the topic: I've already spotted one certain and one almost-certain typo in "The Abominations of Yondo".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20 Apr 07 | 03:04PM by Martinus.

ArkhamMaid Wrote:
>
> I'm the same way about comparing different
> editions. I was stupefied to find that in the
> Library of America edition of Lovecraft's works,
> most of the dialogue that Harley Warren relates to
> Carter as he rambles in the underground pit are in
> italics whereas my beloved Del Rey editions just
> print the text straight! Oh, well...

Sorry, but I have a MUCH dimmer view of the damn'd Del Rey editions. Do you have The Case of Charles Dexter Ward in the Del Rey edition? If so, compare the first lines of parts 3 and 4 (I think it was) of the chapter "An Antecedent and a Horror". I'd be very surprised if that error has been corrected since I found it 15 years ago. I know the British haven't corrected it in their Omnibus volumes.

Other errors: "Lopex" for "Lopez" in "The Picture in the House", "earth" for "Hsan" in "The Other Gods", "Inquanok" for "Inganok" in "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath", "dholes" for "bholes" in "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath", no sub-title for "The Call of Cthulhu".

But Tales is worse. It CLAIMS to be based on the Arkham House editions, yet it has the same new errors as the Dell volumes, The Annotated Lovecraft and More Annotated Lovecraft. Those books are definitely worse than the Penguins.

BTW, compare how many times Warren tells Carter to "beat it" -- Tales v. Del Rey. I haven't had this confirmed, but I wouldn't be surprised if Tales is wrong there.

>
> By the way, Martin, has shewing your friend some
> of Clark Ashton Smith's comely photos helped in
> any way in getting her interested in reading some
> of his works? ^_^

:-) Haven't had the opportunity yet.

Yrs
Martin

What you've told me is horrifying! Because...because...I only have the Del Rey versions. Blast it -- now I'm going to have to buy new copies of all Lovecraft's works too?! ;)

We have seen the darkness
Where charnel things decay,
Where atom moves with atom
In shining swift array,
Like ordered constellations
On some sidereal way.
--from Nyctalops

You'll get used to it after a while -- buying new editions of Lovecraft, that is. :-) I've got most editions of the past few years (except those that I know beforehand are useless to me), and I have my eyes on yet another.

BTW, was I right regarding Ward? (I hope I wasn't.)

Yrs
Martin

Thanks, Martinus, for the explanations, and for the (dreadful and disappointing) examples. I really would have thought better of Penguin, and I now look at that publishing house with a much more jaundiced eye.

Just to be clear, what I meant was not that I assumed the Penguins to be flawless, but that Joshi claimed to have corrected in them some additional errors that had appeared in the Arkham House editions. Therefore, I wasn't certain how you were able to tell from the discrepancies which ones were Joshi's later corrections and which ones were not (except in egregious cases, of course). Now I understand. You seem very knowledgeable, and, since you are in contact with Joshi himself about the matter, he can certainly act as the final arbiter.

Even though they are a bit off topic, I hope that you'll be able to publish the final errata lists here; that would be great.

As for the Del Rey editions of Lovecrat's tales, I suspect that many have a sentimental attachment to them because, for a good deal of us, myself included, they were the first editions of the Old Gent's work that we owned--that, and because of the wonderfully creepy Michael Whelan cover artwork. I can't say that I ever had any great illusions about their textual accuracy, though. The fact of the matter is that finding (and creating) textually accurate editions of writers, such as Lovecraft and Ashton Smith, who first published their writings in the notoriously poorly edited pulps of that time, is like trying to find Diogenes' honest man.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20 Apr 07 | 05:45PM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks, Martinus, for the explanations, and for
> the (dreadful and disappointing) examples. I
> really would have thought better of Penguin, and I
> now look at that publishing house with a much more
> jaundiced eye.

You're welcome. However, I still thinks that the Penguins give you the best deal for your money, so I still recommend them.

>
> Just to be clear, what I meant was not that I
> assumed the Penguins to be flawless, but that
> Joshi claimed to have corrected in them some
> additional errors that had appeared in the Arkham
> House editions. Therefore, I wasn't certain how
> you were able to tell from the discrepancies which
> ones were Joshi's later corrections and which ones
> were not (except in egregious cases, of course).
> Now I understand. You seem very knowledgeable,
> and, since you are in contact with Joshi himself
> about the matter, he can certainly act as the
> final arbiter.

In my lists of differences, I simply omitted the ones that I know are deliberate corrections, such as "an" for "and" in "The Quest of Iranon". And thanks for the compliment about me seeming knowledgeable -- I'd describe myself as "slightly crazy", but that's just me. :-)

>
> Even though they are a bit off topic, I hope that
> you'll be able to publish the final errata lists
> here; that would be great.
>
> As for the Del Rey editions of Lovecrat's tales, I
> suspect that many have a sentimental attachment to
> them because, for a good deal of us, myself
> included, they were the first editions of the Old
> Gent's work that we owned--that, and because of
> the wonderfully creepy Michael Whelan cover
> artwork. I can't say that I ever had any great
> illusions about their textual accuracy, though.

Yes, the cover art is great. BTW, I checked the latest version of [i9The Case of Charles Dexter Ward[/i] from Del Rey (in one of their new collections), and they've repeated the error of the same first line for two chapters again.

My first Lovecraft editions were the British Omnibus volumes. However, the ugliness of the covers were a major fact in me not forming an attachment to them.

> The fact of the matter is that finding (and
> creating) textually accurate editions of writers,
> such as Lovecraft and Ashton Smith, who first
> published their writings in the notoriously poorly
> edited pulps of that time, is like trying to find
> Diogenes' honest man.

True. That's why I've created my personal e-library of all of Lovecraft's fiction and compared it against all available sources. My dream is to print and bind my personal copy of the Ultimate H. P. Lovecraft, with the stories arranged chronologically and with as accurate texts as possible.

Apologies for the late reply, Martinus. I was busy at the bookstore picking up my copy of CAS's The End of the Story and didn't have time to check my copy of The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. However, if the later editions of it still have that error (and seeing as how my copy belonged to my dad back in the early 1990's), it would probably be a safe bet to say that my copy has that problem as well. Thank Heaven I have the Library of America complilation of Lovecraft's works!

We have seen the darkness
Where charnel things decay,
Where atom moves with atom
In shining swift array,
Like ordered constellations
On some sidereal way.
--from Nyctalops

No problem -- you spent your time wisely!

You know, using the Del Rey texts and Tales, you should be able to come up with perfect text versions. But the work involved...!

Yrs
Martin

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> As for the Del Rey editions of Lovecrat's tales, I
> suspect that many have a sentimental attachment to
> them because, for a good deal of us, myself
> included, they were the first editions of the Old
> Gent's work that we owned--that, and because of
> the wonderfully creepy Michael Whelan cover
> artwork.

You're quite right, Kyberean; that's why I like them so much, at any rate.

We have seen the darkness
Where charnel things decay,
Where atom moves with atom
In shining swift array,
Like ordered constellations
On some sidereal way.
--from Nyctalops

Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True. That's why I've created my personal
> e-library of all of Lovecraft's fiction and
> compared it against all available sources. My
> dream is to print and bind my personal copy of the
> Ultimate H. P. Lovecraft, with the stories
> arranged chronologically and with as accurate
> texts as possible.

It's surprising enough that we don't already have such an edition of HPL. I've wondered about that recently -- the still current Arkham House collections should be replaced by an omnibus (divided to as many vols as necessary), containing in chronological order all of Lovecraft's fiction (well, the juvenilia could be in an appendix), including all of the existing fragments, story notes and drafts. Possibly the primary revisions should be integrated as well.

Juha-Matti

I am now on p. 130 of The End of the Story, and while I enjoy the book immensely, it is very difficult to keep an eye out for typos (I'm not helped by the fact that I'm a foreigner, but with Smith it may not be a help to be a native speaker).
Many a time I have rushed in triumph to my computer to note a typo, only to discover in some online dictionary or other that no, this is a real word. (However, maybe "neuclei" isn't. I'm including it on the list just to be safe.) Most of the potential ones I've found (and let me tell you there are damned few of those -- hats off to the proofreaders!) could as easily be stylistic finesses (such as the doubling of the word "thousand" on p. 96). I'll keep looking, but as I said, I can already tell that the proofers have done a very good job of a level of quality that is rare these days.

Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Many a time I have rushed in triumph to my
> computer to note a typo, only to discover in some
> online dictionary or other that no, this is a real
> word.

Welcome to my Hell. :)
I have found that it is not a good idea to bet against CAS when it comes to spellings or word usage.

Best,
Scott

I checked three words in the first story then gave up.

I think he could of gone 'mainstream' with a more conventional word selection; but then again as his plots are not much, it probably would have been average pulp crap if he did.

Quote:

I have found that it is not a good idea to bet against CAS when it comes to spellings or word usage.

Except perhaps in the letters, where he often misuses the word loan as a verb.... ;-P I know, the OED accepts it, but it still makes me cringe. Also, sometimes, he writes "from whence", which is another goof (pleonasm), but I am hard pressed to think of many more!

"I lift mine eyes unto the hills,
from whence cometh my help?..."
psalms KJV OT -- 1611AD

As I was saying earlier...

Sorry, folks, I am not admitting defeat on this one.

First definition listed in the OED:

whence, adv., conj. (n.)

I. Interrogative uses. (Now replaced in ordinary colloquial speech by where...from.)

1. From what place? a. in a direct question.

a1300 K. Horn 161 (Camb. MS.) Whannes beo e, faire gumes, at her to londe beo icume. 1382 WYCLIF Gen. xvi. 8 Whens comyst thow, and whithir gost thow? c1430 Syr Tryam. 431 What do ye here, madam? Fro whens come ye? [ed. Copland (c 1550) Of whens be you..?]. 1526 TINDALE John vi. 5 Whence shall we bye breed that these might eate? 1540 PALSGR. Acolastus II. v. Nij, From whense haste thou brought hym hyther? 1547 BOORDE Introd. Knowl. xxvii. (1870) 192 Of whens be you? I am of England. 1596 SHAKES. Tam. Shr. II. i. 103 Of whence, I pray? Tra. Of Pisa, sir. 1697 DRYDEN Æneis x. 945 Whence am I forc'd, and whether am I born? 1720 DELANY News fr. Parnass. 19 From whence is this Fool? 1773 GOLDSM. Stoops to Conq. v, My wife, as I'm a Christian. From whence can she come? 1855 TENNYSON Brook 22 O babbling brook,..Whence come you?


The "from" may be roughly acceptable through sheer repetition and habit (like the use of "loan" as a verb--anyone care to defend that usage? ;-) ), but it is not the preferred usage, because "whence' suffices on its own, and therefore the "from" is pleonastic. Not entirely a goof, I suppose, but inelegant.

Enough pedantry for this evening. Good night, all!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 8 May 07 | 09:53PM by Kyberean.

The freedom of the King James English is inelegant - puhleeze

Inelegant to the barbarous perhaps, but not to poets such as myself.

Calonlan:

I admire the King James translators, and I enjoy their Bible as poetry, but I don't share your worship of them--or any of your other objects of worship, for that matter. At any rate, pleonasms are inelegant, in my opinion, yes. You do know what a pleonasm is, right?


Voleboy:

When did I join the ranks of the barbarous? Lol. I am a poet, too, don't forget, so please, try not to sound so self-righteous.


It truly amazes me how even a lighthearted comment, such as the one I made about CAS's (in my opinion) occasional linguistic foibles, can give rise to such bilious and snotty remarks. I've really had a bellyful of you people here, and the sentiment is obviously reciprocal, so I am making my exit from the forum a permanent one, this time. It's a shame, really, but I have much better things to do with my time. The end of the story, indeed!

voleboy wrote:

> Inelegant to the barbarous perhaps, but not to
> poets such as myself.

I can't say your writing is entirely free of barbarisms, VB. If you consulted dictionaries more and your unfettered poetic soul less, things might improve.

Kyberean is right according to the letter of the law, but you could see "from whence" as a bit like "two books". The -s of "books" is "pleonastic" from the POV of Chinese and other languages. I suspect if you studied the bare and pleonastic "whence" you'd find some subtle distinction of meaning.

Let us hope Mr. K is a man of his word(s).
For the record, the "whence" of the KJV in the English of that era, refers not to the "where", but to the "source" - The poet looking "unto the hills", is refering to the location of the standing stones where the rites of Baal were practiced and were a perpetual annoyance luring the folk away - Hence the question - from whence cometh my help?, the answer then is the next phrase denying implicitly that "the hills" are a source of "help" (ie power).
Damn the pleonasms! Full speed ahead!

Pity, he had some real insight into Smith's work, enough to make me overlook his somewhat chickenshit refusal to use or reveal his real name (like posting on this website is going to haunt someone on a google search!), but he also had a rather choleric personality. If he wants to think that CAS was verbose, hey it's a free country, but he should expect to be called on it. Your pulling the KJB usage out of the hat seemed to shake him. Yes, "from whence" is archaic, but was it so out of common usage when Smith was growing up? And let's not forget that CAS liked to use archaic words--like hanging a pheasant up for a few days after bagging it, perhaps the hint of "ripeness" added to the flavor. (Never really cared for pheasant myself.)
In any event, I hope that Mr. K. gets either his lithium or depakote levels adjusted and comes back when he learns to take things a little less personally.

Best,
Scott

Just a note, I do not think Kyberean is complaining that CAS uses archaic words. God knows I think he has a love of English and I cannot imagine him hating archaic words, I mean just see his poetry. (Also, I do not know if you tried to ask him his name but it is fairly obvious who he is if one has been here for any length of time; and if he refused on a personal level to reveal his name, well I do not blame him, one's name does come up on google search via this website if one looks and frankly, it is annoying that someone can "stalk" one's online habits. So chickenshit, maybe not; he may simply like his privacy). Anyway, what he seems to be against from what I see is misusage of words or pleonasms.

I see bad behavior all over the above thread. I just wish everyone could get along and not be so damn insulting or egotistical (and that means everybody). There is no reason why we can't speak to each other without using childish behavior or being holier than thou in our knowledge.

My two cents...

Scott Connors wrote:

> Pity, he had some real insight into Smith's work,
> enough to make me overlook his somewhat
> chickenshit refusal to use or reveal his real name
> (like posting on this website is going to haunt
> someone on a google search!), but he also had a
> rather choleric personality.

It's a bit unfair to criticize the obnoxious git now he's not here to defend himself.

> If he wants to think
> that CAS was verbose,

I'm not sure he thought that. He thought even good Homer nodded, which he did.

> hey it's a free country, but
> he should expect to be called on it. Your pulling
> the KJB usage out of the hat seemed to shake him.
> Yes, "from whence" is archaic,

Not much more archaic than "whence" itself. The most famous examples of "from whence" are archaic, but that's what you might expect.

> but was it so out
> of common usage when Smith was growing up? And
> let's not forget that CAS liked to use archaic
> words--

If CAS "liked" to use archaic words, then T. Blair "likes" the limelight. I'd say it's a bit stronger than that, and for CAS a bit more serious-minded too.

> like hanging a pheasant up for a few days
> after bagging it, perhaps the hint of "ripeness"
> added to the flavor. (Never really cared for
> pheasant myself.)
> In any event, I hope that Mr. K. gets either
> his lithium or depakote levels adjusted and comes
> back when he learns to take things a little less
> personally.

I doubt he's on medication for his excessively thin skin, partly because that would imply he's aware of it. Being female generally helps emotional intelligence, but tends to militate against the other sort. swings n roundabouts innit

Ghoti23 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scott Connors wrote:
>
> > Pity, he had some real insight into Smith's
> work,
> > enough to make me overlook his somewhat
> > chickenshit refusal to use or reveal his real
> name
> > (like posting on this website is going to haunt
> > someone on a google search!), but he also had a
> > rather choleric personality.
>
> It's a bit unfair to criticize the obnoxious git
> now he's not here to defend himself.
>
I don't mean to criticize Kyberean. I am genuinely sorry to see him leave. Stating that he was hot-tempered is stating the obvious, not a criticism. I know several people who are also somewhat quick to express their irritation with the state of things, but since they have other qualities I value I have learned to live with it.
The only real characterization that I made which was criticism is his refusal to reveal his real name. Hell, even Superman and Batman knew who each was in mufti. However, in retrospect perhaps "chickenshit" is a little strong. If he were still around (or she, no evidence that I recall that she was a man), I'd apologize for such a characterization.
Best,
Scott

Scott Connors wrote:

> If he
> were still around (or she, no evidence that I
> recall that she was a man),

CAS fan; thin-skinned but aggressive; highly intelligent. I'd say the odds against K being female are pretty high (evil chuckle).

Scott --

Did you get my list of typos that I sent last week? I haven't finished the book yet, but I thought I had better send you the list as far as I've got, and then update it as I find more.

Yrs
Martin

Scott: There are a few errors in Vol. 1 that I jotted down, the most serious being a word omission in "The Last Incantation" that destroys the sentence's coherence. May not be able to relocate the other two typos I recall seeing, but I'll look into it; of course, you know you know about the one under your name in "About the Editors". John

jkh

Errata: pg. 7, 4th line from top (comma splice)
pg. 18, 12th from bottom: "deep down in the his"
pg,27, 12th & 13th from top: (should read "following")
pg. 214, middle: (should read "detailed by his host")
pg. 285: should read "regularly writes" (O, the irony!)

& possibly excessive semicolons in "ROI" and unnecessary comma
on 215, par. 5, line 5.

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Errata: pg. 7, 4th line from top (comma splice)
> pg. 18, 12th from bottom: "deep down in the his"

I spotted those too! :-) However, I missed the one on p. 27 and I haven't yet reached page 214.

Here are my own (with suggestions for correction of the two that I have in common with Kipling). * marks instances where I'm not sure; it might just as well be a stylistic finesse.

4.42: whose lichen blotted marble] whose lichen-blotted marble
*7.4: shadow confirmed me, the Thing hesitated,] shadow confirmed me, for the Thing hesitated
18.6: and the envy, of all rival magicians] and the envy of all rival magicians
18.32: down in the his orbs] down in his icy orbs / down in the icy orbs (I have seen both variants)
*20.4: am Nylissa,” Her] am Nylissa.” Her [full stop instead of comma?)
*96.25-26: in a thousand thousand fragments] in a thousand fragments
*130.36: independent neuclei for] independent nuclei for
*131.12: for the neuclei of] for the nuclei of
144.12-13: At one side, was the final] At one side was the final
258.15: Weird Tales] “Weird Tales
260.14: Lovecraft Collection.)] Lovecraft Collection).
270.15: in the form of a black radiation] in the form of a black radiation [in SL, the word is italicised)
270.36: only meet with rejection] only to meet with rejection
284.10: The typeface suddenly changes sizes.
285.4: Salzburg.. ] Salzburg.

As you can see, there's a gap between p. 144 and p. 258. That's because I read every story with its accompanying story notes.

More later

Martinus: The unnecessary comma in "Root of Ampoi" is after the word "apparently"
on line 5, paragraph 5, page 216 (instead of 215), and the repetitive appearance of semicolons before coordinate conjunctions is not incorrect, but "stylistic finesse," as you said (or "largess" considering the frequency). [email][/email]

jkh

Thanks Kipling; I've included "your" typos in my list.

I've also discovered a couple of new ones:

171.11: When Melchoir returned] When Melchior returned
174.8: nor could he on his part, have recognized] nor could he on his part have recognized / nor could he, on his part, have recognized
174.21: matters. He knew] matters. He knew] (too many blank spaces)

It seems that the forum program automatically corrects mistakes in the form of too many blank spaces, so they don't show up. Also, it won't underline them. Anyway, theyre there.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 26 May 07 | 05:15AM by Martinus.

Kipling Wrote:
> pg. 214, middle: (should read "detailed
> by his host")

I removed this from my list, since "retail" can actually mean "to relate in detail", so it's not a typo.

It is more than a little frustrating seeing as how all our best efforts at proofreading the CAS series--by Night Shade's professional proofreader, Ron, and myself--still were not good enough to catch all of the errors. Ron and I are grateful to everybody who has taken the time to point out something that they find out of place. Luckily, as John points out, not every apparent typo is actually a typo, thanks to Smith's sometimes unique style and usages. I haven't had the time to check out all the possible typos pointed out against the mss, but when I do I will make an official errata sheet that will be posted as a pdf on the ED website.

Best,
Scott

I have approximately 50 pages left to read and check. I've found a couple of potential ones that haven't made it into the list above.

Quote:

It is more than a little frustrating seeing as how all our best efforts at proofreading the CAS series--by Night Shade's professional proofreader, Ron, and myself--still were not good enough to catch all of the errors.

Have you tried sacrificing a black-and-white cockerel?

Quote:

Who Is Titivillus?
Titivillus (also spelled "Tutivillus") is sometimes referred to by modern writers as the "patron demon of scribes" (or of calligraphy). He is said to have been active in the Middle Ages, entering the scriptoria of monasteries and introducing errors into the scribes' work whenever their attention wandered.

Who Is Titivillus?

Scott Connors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is more than a little frustrating seeing as how
> all our best efforts at proofreading the CAS
> series--by Night Shade's professional proofreader,
> Ron, and myself--still were not good enough to
> catch all of the errors.

It's still much better than the Penguin Lovecrafts -- books that were supposed to correct the few remaining typos that managed to sneak into the Arkham House Lovecrafts, but instead introduced a whole bunch of new typos (I have about 3 A4 pages of errors per Penguin; some of them may be deliberate corrections, but many of them are bound to be true errors).

For The End of the Story I found less than one page. Here they are (I've finished the book now, so this is my complete list):

4.42: whose lichen blotted marble] whose lichen-blotted marble
*7.4: shadow confirmed me, the Thing hesitated,] shadow confirmed me, for the Thing hesitated
18.6: and the envy, of all rival magicians] and the envy of all rival magicians
18.32: down in the his orbs] down in his icy orbs / down in the icy orbs
*20.4: am Nylissa,” Her] am Nylissa.” Her [full stop instead of comma]
27.12: château, and followed an old,] château, and following an old,
*96.25-26: in a thousand thousand fragments] in a thousand fragments
*130.36: independent neuclei for] independent nuclei for
*131.12: for the neuclei of] for the nuclei of
144.12-13: At one side, was the final] At one side was the final
171.11: When Melchoir returned] When Melchior returned
174.8: nor could he on his part, have recognized] nor could he on his part have recognized
174.21: matters. He knew] matters. He knew] [too many spaces??]
*185.3: and after awhile, as I] and after a while, as I [I suppose that this is not an error, as it occurs on p. 194 too, but I thought I had better be complete]
*185.12: no way of computating the] no way of computing the
196.29: like wattles. Their riders,] like wattles. Their riders, [too many spaces??]
197.10: the mutineers. Then they] the mutineers. Then they [too many spaces??]
*201.16: ended. Between, were perpendicular] ended. Between were perpendicular
213.16: trace of acromalegy, was] trace of acromegaly, was ["acromalegy" appears to be a garbling of the correct form; anyway it's a form that the doctor narrator is unlikely to have used]
216.24-25: and apparently, somewhat] and apparently somewhat
228.37: he had known] he had known [too many spaces]
258.15: Weird Tales] “Weird Tales
260.14: Lovecraft Collection.)] Lovecraft Collection).
270.15: in the form of a black radiation] in the form of a black radiation (in SL, the word is italicised)
270.36: only meet with rejection] only to meet with rejection [??]
284.10: The typeface suddenly changes sizes.
285.4: Salzburg.. ] Salzburg.
285.8: write regularly] regularly writes

Thanks to Kipling for some of the above.

Yrs
Martin

I just discovered another one on p. 255:

255.11: Donald A. Wandrei (1908-1937), poet,] Donald A. Wandrei (1908-1987), poet,

Unfortunately, this one has also made it into The Door to Saturn (p. 265). I never checked years and dates when I read it the first time.

Starting a typo list for The Door to Saturn today.